标题: 这道题还是不理解，谁能看看 [打印本页] 作者: 屡败屡战 时间: 2011-7-22 22:55 标题: 这道题还是不理解，谁能看看 做了一套，就这道题看了答案也不理解 Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyershave a lower conviction rate than those who rely on court-appointed publicdefenders. This explains why criminals who commit lucrative crimes likeembezzlement or insider trading are more successful at avoiding conviction thanare street criminals. The explanation offered above would be more persuasive ifwhich one of the following were true? (A)Many street crimes, such as drug dealing, areextremely lucrative and those committing them can afford expensive privatelawyers. (B)Most prosecutors are not competent to handlecases involving highly technical financial evidence and have more success inprosecuting cases of robbery or simple assault. (C) The number of criminals convicted of streetcrimes is far greater than the number of criminals convicted of embezzlement orinsider trading. (D) The percentage of defendants who actuallycommitted the crimes of which they are accused is no greater for publiclydefended than for privately defended defendants. (E) Juries, out of sympathy for the victims ofcrimes, are much more likely to convict defendants accused of violent crimesthan they are to convict defendants accused of “victimless” crimes or crimesagainst property. 我稍后再公布答案吧，哪位高手能justify 一下他/她选择的原因作者: aeoluseros 时间: 2011-7-23 02:31
题问support. A.many范围不对. B.prosecutors对象错误 C.原文说概率，选项说绝对数量，错误 D.公共辩护中真正犯罪的比率不比私人辩护中的真正犯罪比率高，assumption支持. E.范围错误，原文并没有从是否是"victimless” crimes or crimesagainst property来区分. Then, D作者: cathycathyhan 时间: 2011-7-23 02:34
Defendents who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a lower conviction rate than those who rely on court-appointed public defenders. This explains why criminals who commit lucrative crimes like embezzlement or insider trading are more successful at avoiding conviction than are street criminals.
The explanation offered above would be more persuasive if which one of the following were true?
[a] Many street crimes. Such as drug dealing, are extremely lucrative and those committing them can afford expensive private lawyers. Most prosecutors are not competent to handle cases involving highly technical financial evidence and have more success on prosecuting cases of robbery or simple assault. [c] The number of criminals convicted of street crimes is far greater than the number of criminals convicted of embezzlement or insider trading. [d] The percentage of defendants who actually committed the crimes of which they are accused is no greater for publicly defended than for privately defended defendants. [e] Juries, out of sympathy for the victims of crimes, are much more likely to convict defendants accused of violent crimes than they are to convict defendants accised of “victimless” crimes or crimes against property
楼主，麻烦你以后把文章打清楚，一个字打错了，还有字和字需要空格。应该选D,这个是增强题中。 其中，low rate就是有百分比的意思。 A没有justify的作用。 B highly technical financial属于范围超出，而且意思相反。 C number和low rate没有直接关系。 E victimless范围超出。作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-7-24 08:36
题问support. A.many范围不对. B.prosecutors对象错误 C.原文说概率，选项说绝对数量，错误 D.公共辩护中真正犯罪的比率不比私人辩护中的真正犯罪比率高，assumption支持. E.范围错误，原文并没有从是否是"victimless” crimes or crimesagainst property来区分. Then, D
-- by 会员 aeoluseros (2011/7/23 2:31:39)
Nicely done.作者: 屡败屡战 时间: 2011-7-24 23:45
现在明白了。 还是觉得D选项的说法好绕啊，又是committed the crimes of which they are accused，又是no greater than for 的，凌乱了都。 作者: 屡败屡战 时间: 2011-7-24 23:50
谢谢，呵呵 有些单词连在一起——我之前真没注意，好像是复制粘贴到这上面就成这样了。作者: cathycathyhan 时间: 2011-7-29 00:56
Sometimes time limits you not to read the whole sentence or argument totally. What you could do is to conclude the key words or do some notes about the key words. It really works for argument. In fact, the way to anylyse all the answers is good but not so practical in the test. Because time is limited.The best way to do argument is that you could prephrase the answer, which may be not 100% right but at least you could have a direction way to choose.作者: 屡败屡战 时间: 2011-7-29 14:46
What do u mean by prephrasing? Having key words of the intented answer in mind before going through all the choices? Sometimes it happens, but more often than not, I have no idea what the answer should be. I usually quickly take a glance at each choices and then choose to read the one that looks like the right answer....作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-7-29 20:00
paraphrase
prephrase is not an English word.作者: cathycathyhan 时间: 2011-7-30 01:48
prephrase意思就是预先对于答案有所准备，这个Bible logical reasoning 里的意思，就是比如这道题目，出题的角度是have a lower conviction rate than ，一是lower rate，二是than表示比较级，所以答案中必须出现rate，在英语中rate就是百分比的概念percentage，第二个答案中需要出现比较级，如果答案符合两种情况的，这样的正确率可以达到80%-90%，就算原文句子再绕，可以做题的正确率会提高。 paraphrase是改写的意思，para前缀意思为全部，但是prephrase，pre前缀意思为预先的意思。大家不要误会两个词语。作者: cathycathyhan 时间: 2011-7-30 02:46
再补充一句，每个题型的argument的prephrase是不一样的，这道题是增强题，可以从出题的角度思考，如果是削弱题，那一般是从逻辑的推理方向的方向性进行prephrase，而且削弱题比增强题来的复杂。我总结过这两题型的思考方向，如果是别的题型，那prephrase的方向又不一样，关键找出argument的中心词和直接的逻辑关系，直接，不是间接。那就需要靠类似because, since, thus这类词语来进行判断，因为LSAT是标准化题型，所以出题者所采取的标准才是需要考虑的东西。作者: cathycathyhan 时间: 2011-8-18 01:30
昨天看分析正好看到这道题目，我觉得是不是我们从小接受的中国教育对于类似这类句子不是很有感觉，如果你把 Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a lower conviction rate than those who rely on court-appointed public defenders. 改写成： If defendants can afford expensive private defense lawyers, they have a lower conviction rate than those who rely on court-appointed public defenders. 这样看的话就舒服多了，上下两个句子都是条件从句，你看if的话，是不是感觉好多了，那你分析答案也比较容易入手了，LSAT中很多喜欢通过比较来得出结论，比如than, as as, more than什么的，重点得出比较的哪个方面，如果题目中的思路是从比较级入手的，答案中也会包括比较级。作者: freshseair 时间: 2013-9-2 12:43
赞cathycathyhan，总结的很好，实用